analyze_result

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool works on 'already-executed' results, implying it does not execute commands itself. However, it omits details about required permissions, side effects, or how suggestions are generated, which limits transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary information. It achieves clarity without verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (six parameters, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'smart suggestions' entail or the return format. While the schema covers inputs, the behavioral and output aspects are under-specified, making it merely adequate for selection but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for parameters. It does not explain how parameters like 'context' influence suggestions, but the schema descriptions are sufficient for basic understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing an executed command result and generating suggestions. It uses a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('command result'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'analyze_command', which could have overlapping functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions use cases ('post-mortem analysis' and 'understanding failures'), providing some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.